找到 1391 篇相关文章
Open-weight AI models are having a moment in the wake of recent turmoil at US tech giants. For French AI lab Mistral, that’s the the best thing that could have happened.
A portfolio can look good on the usual scorecard and still answer the wrong question. One line says return was high. Another says risk-adjusted performance was acceptable. A third says drawdown stayed inside a tolerable range. Then the market turns, the benchmark starts recovering, and the thing I actually care about is different: how efficiently did the portfolio catch up? That is where a new metric can fool its own author. If I build a recovery measure and it moves almost exactly like an existing ratio, I have created a longer name for the same signal. The right acceptance test is geometric: a useful metric should cast a different shadow. This is the rule I used while validating Hyperlogarithmic Benchmark Catch-Up Ratio (HBCR): orthogonality to existing measures is a first-class test, not a chart for the appendix. 1. A new metric has to earn its axis HBCR was built to measure benchmark-relative recovery dynamics. The research page states the motivation plainly: traditional benchmark-relative metrics often fail to capture the true dynamics of investment performance, especially during market recoveries [ A New Metric for Private Equity Risk Adjusted Returns , Calibration of Risk and Correlation in Private Equity ]. That framing matters because the obvious validation path is tempting and weak. You compare the new number with familiar performance measures, find a comforting relationship, and declare victory. But a high correlation with a well-known score can be a warning. If HBCR strongly tracked Sharpe Ratio, it would probably be an expensive synonym for risk-adjusted return. The acceptance test I wanted was sharper. HBCR should have some relationship with performance, because recovery has economic content. It should also avoid collapsing into the same direction as Sharpe Ratio, Beta, Volatility, Alpha, Total Return, or Max Drawdown. Written as a predicate, the test has two sides. Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the set of metrics already on the scorecard, $\rho_{n,m}$ the corr
Fenix Flexin’s hit song “Rubberz” has hip-hop fans arguing over whether it was generated by AI. Some say they have proof it’s machine-made, but will anyone care?
When asked about product-market fit, Spiegel said he believes mass-market consumer adoption won't occur until the end of the decade.
OpenAI’s first-ever influencer brand trip is sparking online backlash as tensions over the use of AI continue.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here. Humanoid robots usually elicit more cringe than awe: They stumble, kick children, and despite advances are still worse at using their hands than my toddler. It’s a nascent industry, and such robots…
Today, I’m talking with Toni Schneider, who is the brand new CEO of the social platform Bluesky — he formally took over after a short stint as interim CEO. This is one of my favorite kinds of interviews to do on Decoder, because a couple years ago, we had Bluesky’s prior CEO, Jay Graber, on […]
The communication-free form of breaking up has become ubiquitous. “I no longer had to bear her energy,” a man who ghosted his partner of four years tells WIRED.
Your next drive-thru order might be taken by a bot. And you might not even notice.
Steve Elmers, also known as the “Guardrail Guy,” is done calling out license plate readers after two that appeared in his videos were vandalized.
MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here. When two OpenAI models hacked into the website Hugging Face in July, they weren’t trying to make money or commit sabotage—they were just looking for answers…
The ROI Black Hole in Social Marketing Consider a mid-market B2B software company whose social team manages campaigns across X, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok from a single shared workspace. Each week the managers review platform-native dashboards that display rising follower counts, solid engagement rates on short-form video, and respectable click-throughs from carousel posts. They export weekly performance reports, paste the numbers into shared spreadsheets, and celebrate the month-over-month lift in impressions. Yet when the sales operations team asks which campaigns contributed to qualified pipeline, the social group cannot produce a single account-level match. Campaign links carry UTM strings, but many prospects arrive through mobile apps or shared links that strip those parameters, leaving the CRM with only anonymous referral domains and no usable journey data. The team attempts manual reconciliation by cross-referencing campaign dates with opportunity creation timestamps, but the exercise quickly collapses under volume. One campaign on LinkedIn might drive 400 clicks while another on TikTok drives 1,200, yet both appear in the CRM as undifferentiated social traffic. Without a consistent identifier that survives across platforms and into the marketing automation system, the social team cannot isolate which creative or audience segment produced the meetings that closed. Budget conversations therefore remain anchored to vanity metrics rather than incremental revenue, and executives grow increasingly skeptical of further platform spend. Medallion Architecture and the Absent Silver Layer Modern data platforms often organize information according to a medallion architecture that progresses through successive stages of refinement. The initial bronze layer captures raw event logs exactly as they arrive from each social API, preserving original timestamps, platform-specific identifiers, and unprocessed metadata. A subsequent silver layer then standardizes those recor
AboFlah talks about his new goals, streaming for charity, and when it’s time to log off.
New EU rules stipulate that people must be told when they’re interacting with AI or looking at AI-generated or -edited content, leading to fear of “disclosure fatigue.”
Noticed a pattern: people switch from GPT to Claude, upgrade to a newer version, try a bigger model and the output barely changes. If that's happened to you, the issue usually isn't the model. It's what you handed it before asking the question. Broke it down to three things context actually needs to supply, and most disappointing outputs are missing one of these, not all of them: Current facts the training data can't know: your pricing, this quarter's numbers, a customer's actual history. Leave this out and the model doesn't leave a blank, it quietly invents something plausible. A concrete example of what "good" looks like: not "professional tone," an actual paragraph to pattern-match against. Descriptions get interpreted, examples get copied. What already happened earlier in the task: a correction you made two messages ago. If you don't restate it, it's gone. The model isn't ignoring you, it just doesn't re-read messages you haven't pointed it back to. The counterintuitive part: the most common mistake isn't giving too little context, it's dumping in too much unfiltered. The model has to weigh every token, and irrelevant material competes for attention with what actually matters. Forty pages when the task needs three paragraphs makes the right answer harder to find, not easier. Wrote up a longer breakdown with a concrete before/after example (same task, same model, only the context changed): https://medium.com/@nagatomopedro05/good-ai-starts-with-good-context-design-77496f7b9eb6 Curious if others here have run into this, model-swapping as a first instinct instead of fixing the input. submitted by /u/ClickOk5811 [link] [留言]
If you write with AI you already know the tells: the throat-clearing opener, the tidy rule of three, "it's not just X, it's Y." But I was curious to see statistically what models actually produced the most slop, so I made my own opensource benchmark: theslopindex.com Here's how I came up with the benchmark. 1) The Baseline: Slop can only be measured compared to stuff that already existed. So I got corpus of data for various areas of writing (email, social, chat, and essays) so that each has a human baseline. 2) Tasks I then hand-wrote 112 written scenarios for the models to egenerate outputs to across email, Slack, social media posts, and essays (a cold email, a schedule change, a launch tweet, an argumentative essay, etc). Every model gets the identical scenarios at default settings, several samples each: and you can see all the exact outputs in my Github repo. 3) Axes Now for how to decide to measure slop we settled with 5 dimensions. - Conciseness (one of the most annoying parts of AI writing is how it takes 6 paragraphs to say 2 sentences) - Templating (AI often reuses the same sentences/styles across unrelated scenarios) - Rhythm (Variance in sentence/paragaphs, humans often switch this up while models stay p similar) - Tells (Over used vocab and construction for stuff like "delve", "it's not just X, it's Y") - Human Preference (I think this is most important as everything else are just heuristics for this) Note how we DELIBERATIVELY don't have any LLM judging, I think it'd be pretty stupid to have LLMs judge LLMs Now for the results What really surprised me is how human preference influenced the rankings heavily. When looking at only the "mechanical" part. Fable is actually #2 on the benchmark, but when I included human preference it drops to last . And I think this is indicative that as the models more recently have become more benchmark optimized, they've actually produced more slop than less. Which is where good prompting, harness, and more matter. But eith
“For example, in the University of Texas experiments, a participant listened to the phrase, “I didn’t know whether to scream, cry or run away. Instead, I said, ‘Leave me alone!’”. The decoder translated this brain activity as, “Started to scream and cry, and then she just said, ‘I told you to leave me alone.’”.” submitted by /u/Darkengine53 [link] [留言]
Hi, sorry if this is a repeated question on this subreddit but I want to know what is the monthly cheapest reasonable AI setup for myself. Basically im a "full stack developer" yea its lost its meaning but anyways I have like 5 projects with a company which is react laravel based (each in their own project folder thus i use file path to call them). Im at the stage where its bug fixing or sometimes new integrations with the already linked 5 apps. My current setup is the $20 per month cursor plan. I used infinite agent + composer 2.5 to do 8hrs of work per day. However, i find that before the month ends im usually out of tokens. What do u guys recommend is the cheapest way i can manage? Similarly i do some freelancing too that has next & node.js website building from scratch (around 70hrs per month). What do u recommend would get me with quicker work done but within this price. What do u think i should setup to either continue with the same flow but more tokens i guess? Im hearing about kimi. Would that be better and easier to do the tasks which r pretty straight forward? submitted by /u/Da_BrownNoob [link] [留言]
submitted by /u/techpotions [link] [留言]
Hi guys, Recently made a AI digital twin of mine which also kind of works as my assistant too, for example when you chat with it and ask something which it does not have answer for it will instantly notify me that someone is asking me this question and i do not have answer for that. and if i reply it will be instantly uploaded to the database so next time it can answer. and also if a user is have some conversation with my agent and it feels something important is going on here and it will notify me and i can jump in the chat as well. We can have a three way conversation like Me, User, AI twin. here is the link if you want to try: live demo🌐: https://aruncore.vercel.app This is not a self promo this is asking for feedback of a genuine project i made. Tell me what you guys think, Would love some feedback. submitted by /u/Hot-Appearance-55 [link] [留言]